Disposed

Sri Eshwar Naik v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2022WP/43665/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought mandamus directing respondents to stop an unlicensed service station operation. The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider a 2015 representation and mandated a fresh complaint within a specified timeline for action.

What did the court decide?

Directed Deputy Commissioner to consider a fresh representation within eight weeks of receipt; petitioner directed to make such representation.

Sri Eshwar Naik Vs Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP NO.43665 OF 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.43665 OF 2015 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. ESHWAR NAIK S/O GOVINDA NAIK AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT KASABA, BOLVERI, BEHIND KRISHNA DRIVING SCHOOL, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 001.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRAKASH SHETTY S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU - 575 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶16

TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 501. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.

¶17

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA MULTI-STORIED BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

¶18

¶19

WP NO.43665 OF 2015

¶20

BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶21

THE PUTTUR TOWN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SUB-INSPECTOR PUTTUR MAIN ROAD,

¶22

DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 001.

¶23

BALAJI SERVICE STATION BEHIND KRISHNA DRIVING SCHOOL, BOLVARU, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 001.

¶24

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM, CITY SUB-DIVISION, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 001.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. A.R. SHARADAMBA, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R5; SRI. A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. MALLIKARJUNA C. BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI. G.C. SHANMUKHA, ADVOCATE FOR R7)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 5 TO PREVENT THE RESPONDENT NO.6 TO CARRY ON THE SERVICE STATION, WELDING AND PAINTING ON THE SAID PLACE WITHOUT LICENCE; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 5 TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.6 FOR CARRYING ON THE SERVICE STATION WITHOUT LICENCE; AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the

¶31

¶32

WP NO.43665 OF 2015

¶33

respondents 1, 3 and 5 to prevent the respondent No.6 from carrying out the service station, welding and painting works without licence in the place which is adjacent to the residence of the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has made a representation dated 08^th May, 2015 (Annexure-P2) to the respondent No.1.

¶34

Heard Sri. Prakash Shetty S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1, 2 & 5; Sri. A. Keshava Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3; Sri. Mallikarjuna C. Basareddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4; Sri. B.S. Sachin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 and Sri. G.C. Shanmukha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7.

¶35

Having taken note of the contents in the representation dated 08^th May, 2015 made by the petitioner to the respondent No.1, I am of the view that the respondent No.1 shall consider the same at the earliest. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 is directed to consider the representation

¶36

¶37

WP NO.43665 OF 2015

¶38

dated 08^th May, 2015 in accordance with law. It is made clear that since, the said representation is of the year 2015, the petitioner is directed to make one more representation to the respondent No.1 in this regard. If such a representation is made by the petitioner to the respondent No.1, the same shall be considered by the respondent No.1 within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation that may be made by the petitioner. Subject to the direction given above, writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

ARK

Sri Eshwar Naik v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Eshwar Naik v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nethravathi Vs Corporation Bank

Smt B P Sushma Vs Union of India

Mr Roopesh Murthy N Vs Reserve Bank of India

Sri K S Narasimha Murthy Vs Chief Manager

Sri Malleshwara Proudha Shaale Vs the State of Karantaka

Sri Cheluva Bhovi Vs the Registrar of Society